MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) MATRIX

Transcription

1 Adapting conservation agriculture for rapid adoption by smallholder farmers in North Africa (CANA Project) MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) MATRIX GOAL/IMPACT: Adoption of CA among small farmers in North African region is enhanced Has influenced a I1. At least 10,000 ha per each core country are Area cropped under CA system in How: Impact Evaluation study Year 3-5 after positive perception change about the CA system among target farmers? Have CA adopting farmers increased the yield of cereal cropped under the CA system 3-5 years after (this acreage would amount to 30,000 ha per country 10 years after project ) I2. At least 50% of the CA adopting small farmers in the target countries in Year 3-5 after (and Year 10 after ) Number of farmers that adopted CA the target countries How: Impact Evaluation study Year 3-5 after crops (wheat and barley) - and consequently the economic output per ha - at the end of and in the subsequent years thereafter? Did continue to increase the number of CA have reported an increase of at least 180 AUD per hectare of cereal crop (wheat or barley) 3-5 years after. I3. At least 50% of soils hosting CA system in the 3 core countries have improved stature against wind system in Year 3-5 after project Increase of produce value in AUD per ha and per farmer within a sample of adopting farmers in Year 3-5 after ) A set of physico-chemical parameters of soils within a sample Where: Sample of adopting farmers on project selected sites in the target countries How: Impact Evaluation study Where: Sample of adopting Year 3-5 after adopting farmers after the and water erosion (run off) of soils hosting CA system according farmers on project selected sites? Has increased the acreage cropped under the CA system in the target countries after? to the research protocol in the target countries PURPOSE/EFFECTS: Capacities of NARES in the 3 participating countries to promote CA and enhance its adoption among small farmers in the region are strengthened Has increased 1. At least 1,000 small farmers among Number of direct beneficiaries How: Yearly monitoring forms + End of Years a year the number of CA adopting farmers that adopted the CA direct beneficiaries have adopted a CA cropping system (correct, regular entire or partial application) reached by Number of direct beneficiaries that Annual Progress Reports indirect beneficiaries within its time-life? system among its direct and 1,000 in Yr 3) at (300 in Yr 1; 600 in Yr 2; and have adopted CA cropping system By who: National teams in 3 countries (TBI) 2. At least 5,000 small farmers among indirect beneficiaries have adopted a CA cropping system ((correct, regular entire or partial application) at (1,000 in Yr 2; 2,500 in Yr 3; and 5,000 in Yr 4) Number of indirect beneficiaries reached by Number of indirect beneficiaries that have adopted CA cropping system 1 How: Yearly monitoring forms + Annual Progress Reports By who: National teams in 3 countries (TBI) End of Years a year

2 3. At least 50% of beneficiaries have declared a perception change (from negative to positive perception) about the CA system by the end of Number of project (direct and indirect) beneficiaries at the end of Number of project (direct and indirect) beneficiaries that declare a positive perception change about the CA system within a sample of project beneficiaries at the end of How: Adoption study Where: Sample of beneficiaries on project selected sites in the target countries OUTPUT1: Major bio-physical, agro-ecological and socio-economic constraints to CA adoption by small farmers are identified Are major bio-physical and 1a. A baseline study report based on a household Agreed-upon parameters according How: Household survey of 100 End of Year 1 agro-ecological constraints to CA adoption identified? Are socio-economic constraints to CA adoption identified? Are pros and cons policy and institutional options for CA adoption clearly determined? survey of at least 100 farmer-households for each platform is validated by the end of Year 1 of the project 1b. An agro-ecological characterisation study report for each platform is validated by the end of Year 1 of to validated common questionnaire in each selected project site Agreed-upon parameters according to validated common template in each selected project site farmers How: Agro-ecological study By who: AEC teams in 3 End of Year 1 1c. A typology of production systems report including a similarity analysis is finalised by the end of Year 2 of 1d. A policy and institutional set-up review for each core country including working recommendations is available by the end of Year 2 of Agreed-upon parameters according to validated common research protocol Pros and cons policy and institutional options for CA adoption Agreed-upon common sets of agroecological parameters of the different ZT seed drill options 2 countries How: Typology + Similarity analysis including the sets of data of the Where: + Regional + AEC teams in 3 countries + other resource persons How: Desk documents review Where: 3 core countries OUTPUT2: Low-cost small size and simple technology no-till (or ZT) seeding machinery is made available. Did succeed in developing new ZT seed drill prototypes that fit the context of target platforms? Did test and assess the different ZT seed 2a. A new ZT seed drill prototype to meet key specifications identified in the target platforms is tested by the end of Year 2 of Technical specifications of ZT seed drill prototype in How: Design form Where: 3 target platforms By who: Machinery design teams End of Years 2, 3 and 4 a year 2b. A field performance assessment of different ZT seed drill options for successful crop establishment in the is conducted annually from Year How: Field performance study

3 drill options in the target platforms? Did succeed in engaging local manufacturers for the development & manufacture of low-cost appropriate ZT machinery options? 2 to Year 4 Agreed-upon common sets of socioeconomic parameters of the different ZT seed drill options 2c. At least 2 local manufacturers are engaged by the project in the development and manufacture of lowcost appropriate ZT machinery options by the end of Year 3 of 2d. An economic and investment opportunities assessment of the new ZT drills in the is available during Year 4 of Level of commitment of local manufacturers Level of implementation of the approved work plan Costs and benefits of the investment in low-cost ZT seed drills By who: Agronomists + Machinery joint teams How: Monitoring of signed agreements between CANA project and local manufacturers through regular visits/meetings Where: local manufacturers' workshops in 3 countries By who: Machinery design teams How: Cost-benefit analysis Where: + Machinery design teams of 3 countries End of Years 2 and 3 End of Year 4 On quarterly basis OUTPUT3: Appropriate weed management and crop-livestock integration practices are developed Did provide technical responses to farmers' constraints on CA adoption such as weed control management, crop 3a. Options for an integrated weed control management at the farm with consideration of herbicide resistance and adequate application are developed by the end of Year 3 of a year diversification, alternative feed sources, etc.? Has assessed the profitability/productivity of integrated crop-livestock production systems under CA? 3b. Options for crop diversification (including forage crops) and a crop sequence to enhance diversification and sustainable productivity are developed for each platform by the end of Year 3 of a year 3c. At least one decision tool/model for crop monitoring and risk management is validated by the end of Year 3 of 3d. A set of alternative integrated feeding options (including forage crops) is developed by the end of Year 3 of 3e. The profitability and productivity of integrated crop-livestock production systems under CA is evaluated by the end of Year 4 through the use of Groupings and synthesis Sets of technical parameters for each identified production system Economic data on the different 3 How: Decision model design + Australia By who: agronomists of the exp. How: Partial budgeting + others Where: By who: agronomists- End of Year 3 End of Year 3 a year

4 decision support and modelling tools cultural practices and inputs on each identified production system economists joint teams OUTPUT4: A NARES capacity development plan for CA promotion is implemented in each participating country Did succeed in raising the awareness on CA system among main stakeholders in the region? 4a. 3 raising awareness workshops are yearly organised in each participating country by the end of Year 3 of (1st WS at project start-up; 2nd WS in mid- ; 3rd WS in a field Number of awareness workshops organised Number of participants of different types of stakeholders per workshop How: Workshop briefs the For every workshop Did allow visit at end of ). Major decisions or recommendations CANA Project Management scientists, extensionists and farmers from the region to 4b. Up to 15 scientists/extensionists/ farmers from the Number of scientists and How: Mission reports (or briefs) a year check the Australian expertise in situ? Did improve direct beneficiaries' knowledge about CA system? Did promote/use region visit Australia before (3 in Yr 1; 6 in Yr 2; 3 in Yr 3; and 3 in Yr 4) 4c. At least 5 field days/farmer field schools per platform are yearly organised (FFS 1 on ZT machinery and planting & crop establishment; FFS extensionists visiting Australia Number of farmers visiting Australia Number of FD/FFS organised Number of participants of different types of stakeholders per FD/FFS Where: + Regional Management How: FD/FFS Briefs (same as Workshop Briefs) For each FD/FFS outreach and dissemination 2 on IPM; FFS 3 on crop & soil management and Major lessons learned the means in favour of CA risk management; FFS 4 on residue management adoption? and crop/livestock integration; and FFS 5 on crop CANA Project Management diversification and rotation) 4d. At least 5 brochures covering different subjects on CA are published before Number of issues printed per brochure Number of issues disseminated per brochure (disaggregated per category of stakeholders) 4 How: Stock from Where: + Regional CANA Project Management a year for each brochure OUTPUT5: A CA regional hub is developed around the ICARDA regional office in Tunis Did promote the expected exchange between the Australian expertise and the region? Did succeed in capitalising the CA experience in the Maghreb region? 5a. 7 Australian scientists visit the region before (1 in Yr 1; 2 in Yr 2; 3 in Yr 3; and 1 in Yr 4) Number of Australian scientists visiting scientists How: Project annual reports + mission reports of Australian visiting scientists Where: Regional + 3 platforms Management + National Coordinators a year 5b. At least 15 scientists/extensionists and 12 farmers have participated in the inter-regional visits organised by before Number of scientists and extensionists participating in interregional visits Number of farmers participating in How: Project annual reports Where: Regional Management a year

5 5c. The project membership is extended to Libya ad Mauritania before the end of Year 2 5d. A regional final workshop on CA is organised before 5e. Un site web of the CA North Africa Network is functional before the end of Year 3 of inter-regional visits Number of Libyan and Mauritanian participants in regional activities Number of participants Thematic areas of the workshop Recommendations of the workshop Lessons learned & success stories Number of visitors Number of discussions/chats on CA How: Participants' reports Where: Regional How: Workshop proceedings Where: Workshop venue (regional ) + Workshop Scientific Committee How: Site web investigation Where: Regional End of Years 2, 3 et 4 End of Year 4 End of Years 3 and 4 a year OUTPUT6: The project is efficiently managed by a project management unit (PMU) established in the ICARDA regional office in Tunis Did clearly plan 6a. An annual work plan is yearly validated by the Annual work plans and budgets of How: Desk document review Start of Years a year its activities on a regular basis? Did assess its progress on a regular basis? Was managed on the basis of an agreed-upon M&E plan? Steering Committee 6b. An annual progress reports is yearly validated by the Steering Committee the platforms Annual plan and budget for regional activities Annual progress reports and expenditures reports of the platforms Annual progress/implementation reports and expenditures reports for Where: Regional How: Desk document review Where: Regional 1, a year 6c. At least 80% of the monitoring activities registered in the validated M&E plan are conducted according to schedule 6d. A CA adoption study is conducted at the end of 6e. A study on farmer perception on CA system is conducted at the end of regional activities Number of M&E activities mentioned in the agreed-upon M&E plan Number of M&E activities implemented on a timely-basis Sets of data to show the degree and rate of CA adoption according to an agreed-upon common questionnaire Sets of data to show the perception change on CA system among direct and indirect beneficiaries according to an agreed-upon common questionnaire How: Desk document review Where: Regional How: Adoption study reports How: Adoption study reports a year 5